Habitat use by wild boar <em>Sus scrofa</em> in Moncayo Nature Park, Spain

Abstract

Habitat use by wild boar Sus scrofa was examined during a three-year period in Moncayo Nature Park, a protected mountain area in the Iberian mountain system, Spain. Tracking indirect signs of activity was used to collect data on the species occurrence, according to vegetation type, topography, hunting activity, and season. The data were analysed using binary logistic regression. Habitat used by wild boar differed according seasons, management practices, and vegetation. Main selected habitats were at medium elevations (1,101-1,600 m) in areas dominated by holm oak (Quercus ilex), beech (Fagus sylvatica) and oak woods of Q. robur, Q. petraea and Q. pyrenaica. Non-hunting areas were selected over hunting areas. We found a seasonal variation in the habitat use of wild boar, with areas dominated by holm oak being used disproportionately in spring, and areas at medium elevations selected only during summer. The results also support the view that non-hunting areas provide a refuge for this species inside the protected area.

The Effect of the Wild Boar Hunting System on Agricultural Damages: The North-East of Italy as a Case Scenario

“…Within the eradication area, agriculture covers 83.4% of the overall surface, and arboriculture is mostly oriented towards broad-leaved cultivations. The association between agricultural damages and increasing surface of arboriculture may be explained by the use of these habitats by wild boar because of the presence of mast (e.g., [ 28 , 80 , 81 , 82 ]) and refuges (e.g., [ 29 , 83 , 84 , 85 ]). Therefore, the likelihood of damages increases in those cultivars located in the near proximity of them [ 29 ].…”

“…Within the eradication area, canopy-covered habitats (i.e., broad-leaved forests, coniferous forests, mixed forests, moors, shrublands and riparian vegetation) constitute 2% of the overall surface, show a patchily distribution and/or are present along the main rivers. Because forest areas provide food (e.g., [ 28 , 80 , 81 , 82 ]) and refuges to wild boar (e.g., [ 29 , 83 , 84 , 85 ]), we speculate that the probability of damages is higher in those crops located in the near proximity of these habitats, rather than in open fields in which vegetation covers are absent or barely present.…”

“…Furthermore, in 2022, an inverse relationship was observed between the number of damages and increasing grassland surface. As for arboriculture, the wild boar positively selects these habitats due to the presence of refuges (e.g., [ 29 , 83 , 84 , 85 ]) and food (e.g., [ 28 , 80 , 81 , 82 ]). Therefore, crop damages are likely to occur when crop fields occur nearby [ 29 ].…”

“…Because in those municipalities characterized by a higher number of damages agricultural fields and grasslands are fragmented with forest habitats (which constitute the highest percentage of the overall available surface—mean ± SD = 79.4 ± 15.8%), the likelihood of damages increases [ 29 ]. The higher wild boar abundance recorded within the non-eradication area compared to the eradication one is most likely attributable to the presence of a more natural and suitable habitat for the species, especially forests (e.g., [ 28 , 29 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 95 ]), which constitute one of the main factors which favoured the expansion of the wild boar population across Europe (e.g., [ 2 , 3 ]). However, in the eradication area, the wild boar culling system does not strictly depend on local counts.…”

Wolf–Hunting Dog Interactions in a Biodiversity Hot Spot Area in Northern Greece: Preliminary Assessment and Implications for Conservation in the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest National Park and Adjacent Areas

“…Homogenous unfragmented forest patches consist of a critical factor for homesite selection of wolves during summer and late autumn months [ 86 , 87 ], where the probability of encounters with wolves increases. Moreover, those areas are used as well by wild boar as daytime refuge or foraging areas [ 88 ], and thus presumably by wild boar hunters and wolves. Dog predation risk was lower in areas with higher cattle density.…”